Nicholas Stuart is a columnist with the Canberra Times.
Nick Stuart has written three books,
Kevin Rudd: An Unauthorised Political Biography;
What Goes Up: Behind the 2007 Election; and
Rudd's Way: November 2007 - June 2010.

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

THE WORLD DIDN'T END

Which do you prefer; which is worse.

It's either the third day of the Carbon Tax or the sixth day since the government failed to do anything about the asylum seekers . . .

This column, for a change, examines the failure of rhetoric from the Opposition, rather than the failed policy making of the government . . .

A TIME OF DYSFUNCTION

As happens so often during times
of turmoil, reasoned debate has stuttered to a halt. Wild-eyed fanatics now walk
the land, bearing placards prophesying pestilence and war. Petty demagogues are
invested with the status of seers. Those at the fringe are listened to with
respect. Even sensible people begin to wonder if perhaps, just perhaps, these
wild mystics full of prophesy might have answers to our current problems.

They don’t. There is nothing more
likely to foster ignorance and cataclysm than the current spate of ignorant
sloganeering our politicians – ones of all persuasions – are indulging in at
the moment.

The demonstrations and protests
are part of a deliberate attempt to insert mass emotions into Australian politics.
In fact they represent a debasement of the debate. It’s becoming more, not
less, difficult to determine our way forward. Tony Abbott’s determination to
keep resistance to Julia Gillard’s government simmering is quite
understandable. That’s his job. The problem is that he has other
responsibilities as well, and the way he’s seen to be egging on the campaign to
destabilise the government is now working to debase the very qualities he’ll
need to display when he gets the top job.

If you desired an example of what
happens when the fringe is at work, you simply needed to attend the Sydney
protest against the Carbon tax over the weekend. For very good reasons,
journalists are not allowed to make judgements about the ‘type’ of people who
attend mass events. Instead, reporters convey facts; the number at a
demonstration and what happened. So let me instead insert my own conclusions
about that bunch of tattered, scruffy, but noisy group of deluded protestors.

Barely two thousand (out of a
city containing more than four million) turned out to yell obscenities at their
Prime Minister. They were encouraged to vent their fury by Bronwyn Bishop, who
egged on the desperate burghers. The appearance of Bronwyn (as opposed to
Liberal Deputy Leader Julie Bishop) in an argument is akin to “Godwin’s Law”.
Originally this was formulated by a lawyer who observed that, as online
disputes become longer and more heated, it’s only a matter of time before
someone invokes Adolf Hitler. Similarly, the more absurd a political debate
becomes, the more likely it is that this strong-minded Liberal will appear,
leading protesters on a forlorn crusade down a cul-de-sac of her own making.

I’d first met Bishop in the
1980’s. People talked of her then as Brunhilda, a blond-headed valkyrie who
might charge to Canberra at the head of a host of avenging longboats carrying
good solid Liberals, firm and true, who would dispatch the indolent Labor
government of Bob Hawke. She was regularly compared favourably with her near
contemporary, Margaret Thatcher, and it was confidently predicted she’d become
our first female PM. It never happened. And when, eventually and many years
later, the government did finally change, John Howard found Bishop was not
indispensible. In fact, his attitude was rather the reverse.

Her re-emergence is a clear
indication of the turgid pool into which political debate has sunk. This is
not, you understand, a reflection on Bishop. I have no doubt she fervently
believes in her cause, just as I accept those protesters had every right to
yell their dissent, as loudly as they can, as they marched through the streets
of Sydney. But the point is that this tiny group of self-selected people were
no more representative of our society than the picked team of Olympic athletes
who are about to march, on our behalf, into the stadium in London. Allowing
their anger to form our response to climate change is as ridiculous as
asserting that, because a couple of ‘our’ athletes manage to beat the world’s
best, somehow the extra cake I’ve just eaten won’t show up on my waistline.

Why is Bishop particularly
responsible for the dead-end into which she blindly leads her followers?
Because fervency of belief is no replacement for navigation using a map. And
yet this is what the Liberals are obstinately refusing to countenance at the
moment. Let me count the ways.

Take the picture of Abbott
standing in front of billboards proclaiming he’ll move to repeal the Carbon Tax
as soon as he’s voted in. This treats voters like fools. Unless he also
receives a majority in the Senate – an almost impossible task – any legislation
will be blocked until a double-dissolution can be held. The various
permutations of this are complex because of the two houses aren’t aligned,
nevertheless it means Abbott’s promise is meaningless. But instead of
attempting to explain sensibly how he would go about changing the government’s
settings he’s encouraging anger to overwhelm intelligent debate.

This is also evident –
outrageously so – in his pretence that he’d “turn the boats back”. Abbott has
suggested he’d attempt to order RAN officers to tow asylum seekers out to open
water. If the little boats were sinking, even if they were owned by
people-smugglers and full of illegal immigrants, his orders would also be
illegal. Navy ships are not bathtub toys to be sailed around at the beck and
call of a PM controlling interceptions from a bunker dug in the grounds of the
Lodge.

Likewise Abbott’s assertion that
his initial trip will be to Jakarta to tell the Indonesian President he wants
the armada of boats to stop. While there is a great deal of evidence to suggest
that Gillard has already critically mismanaged the relationship with this emerging
power, there can be no real confidence that Abbott would manage this vital relationship
any better than she has.

His announcement of a “reverse
Colombo plan”, sending Australian students to Asia to learn about our
neighbourhood, is excellent. This promise sends a clear signal of engagement
and understanding in a neglected area. It is likely to have a more positive
bearing on our national security than, for example, the purchase of a fourth
Air Warfare Destroyer. Unfortunately. Abbott’s positive initiatives such as
this are almost immediately caught up in his relentlessly negative, hyperbolic
and vitriolic response to other issues such as asylum seekers and climate
change.

Measurements released over the
weekend confirmed the arctic ice sheet is shrinking. We need an answer. Febrile
debate, regressing to absurdity, do nothing for the future of our democracy.

1 comment:

A good task for you Nic would be to write an analysis about Tony Abbott, similar to your very good effort on Rudd. With Tony, there is also the benefit of his own little effort 'Battlelines' to draw upon.

On another front, the best way to stop the boats is to actually prevent them starting the journey which requires interception in the forward areas viz Indonesia mainly. The assistance being given to Indonesia to do this appears to be welcome. A third of the so-termed 'refugees' are found not to be so and are in fact illegal economic migrants only. They should not enjoy the protection to which genuine refugees are provided and Australia is often too soft. The fact that people smugglers with businesses and family in Malaysia have been able to infiltrate the process and gain permanent residency in Australia (as per 4 Corners) is a matter of concern and the Government should have cancelled their visas and deported these persons and their families at once.

Lastly, global warming will occur, the scenario of 450 ppm in order to prevent a 2 degree C rise in temperature always only had a 50% chance of success - this has always been acknowledged and stated by the IPCC and UNEP. We are on track to achieve a 550 ppm or higher which equates to 3.5% increase so the ice sheets will melt, the permafrost will also melt and large amounts of the other GHG, Methane will be released in addition to C02. Rio + 20 was a complete failure which has now been widely reported and acknowledged. Tony, Julia and Co cannot do much to prevent this no matter how much effort they put into the Carbon Tax debate.